SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • left ventricular mass;
  • left ventricular hypertrophy;
  • echocardiography;
  • image quality

Background

Left ventricular mass (LVM) and hypertrophy (LVH) are important parameters, but their use is surrounded by controversies. We compare LVM by echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), investigating reproducibility aspects and the effect of echocardiography image quality. We also compare indexing methods within and between imaging modalities for classification of LVH and cardiovascular risk.

Methods

Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis enrolled 880 participants in Baltimore city, 146 had echocardiograms and CMR on the same day. LVM was then assessed using standard techniques. Echocardiography image quality was rated (good/limited) according to the parasternal view. LVH was defined after indexing LVM to body surface area, height1.7, height2.7, or by the predicted LVM from a reference group. Participants were classified for cardiovascular risk according to Framingham score. Pearson's correlation, Bland–Altman plots, percent agreement, and kappa coefficient assessed agreement within and between modalities.

Results

Left ventricular mass by echocardiography (140 ± 40 g) and by CMR were correlated (r = 0.8, P < 0.001) regardless of the echocardiography image quality. The reproducibility profile had strong correlations and agreement for both modalities. Image quality groups had similar characteristics; those with good images compared to CMR slightly superiorly. The prevalence of LVH tended to be higher with higher cardiovascular risk. The agreement for LVH between imaging modalities ranged from 77% to 98% and the kappa coefficient from 0.10 to 0.76.

Conclusions

Echocardiography has a reliable performance for LVM assessment and classification of LVH, with limited influence of image quality. Echocardiography and CMR differ in the assessment of LVH, and additional differences rise from the indexing methods.